Comments by infosource

Page 1 of 1

Posted on March 22 at 10:35 p.m.

Latest on Jacks case involving illegal fees: 03/13/2015 Association of attorneys filed for: City Attorney Ariel P. Calonne associates attorney Michael G. Colantuono for respondent City of Santa Barbara and requests removal of the law firm Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson LLP03/13/2015 Rehearing petition filed by respondent City of Santa Barbara03/16/2015 Order filed requesting answer to rehearing petition. On March 13, 2015, City of Santa Barbara filed their petition for rehearing. Pursuant to Rule 8.268(Petition for Rehearing) Rolland Jacks et al., have 8 days from the date of this order to serve and file their answer. The answer must comply with the relevant provisions of Rule 8.204.

Likely that she did not see a future for herself with the new Superintendent in Santa Barbara and therefore moved to another District asap. SBUSD's new Superintendent comes across often as autocratic.

Why did the assistant superintendent for finance leave?

Has anyone ever calculated how much Assistant Superintendent Smith was paid the last two years in salary and benefits? Also, how much did last Superintendent (Sarvis) receive in payout in the last two years? Both had contracts (written by Smith) with unusually high benefit packages.

The last Federal tax return displayed (year 2007) at Guidestar and available to the public shows salaries and benefits for the top executives at very high levels and also shows that Davies Public Relations received more than 200,000 dollars in that year alone. Where is the 2008 tax return? Was the organization taken over by the top executives with the help of the PR firm working at their direction? The tax return also lists assets. Two other firms received payments exceeding $200,000 to provide information apparently supportive of the plans of management. One also must ask, where are the members of the Board of Directors while all of this is happening? Why did the Botanic Garden need a PR firm?

For CharlesB and others: The staff report posted on the State Lands Commission web-site confirms that only a few staff persons were allowed to see the full agreement which was submitted as "confidential" and they were not allowed to disclose the actual contents. The above article and Angry Poodle missed that fact. The Agreement was not negotiated by the County and the County is not a party to the Agreement. The State Lands Commission attorneys, who work for the State, and the staff of the Commission agreed, that one cannot assume in view of federal pre-emption and other legal hurdles that the agreement will be successful. The State Lands Commission attorneys should be commended for their due diligence report which put their legal analysis and the unknowns on the table for all to see. If anyone wants to use the "confidential" agreement as a basis for public decision making, it needs to be a public document. The State Lands Commission exists to protect the interests of the State and that includes the residents. Again, if not made public, no deal.

Transparency is important to the new administration in Washington and should be practiced by all who seek to make decisions for the benefit of the public. Why allow a "secret agreement" as the basis for a decision which would be seen as a shift or change in governmental policy? If the oil producer and the "protectors" are not willing to disclose, no deal.